Dairy Industry

Part of Prayers – in the House of Commons at 11:36 am on 12 March 1997.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Roger Moate Mr Roger Moate , Faversham 11:36, 12 March 1997

I shall try to make a few points very briefly, as this is such a short debate. I, too, compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Weston—super—Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) on his eight years as Chairman of the Agriculture Select Committee. I have had the privilege of being on it for two years, and have come to respect his great support for agriculture, knowledge of the industry and the way in which he has created a cohesive and happy Committee.

The only complaint that I would make of the Committee—it is a feature of all Select Committees—is that its very cohesion tends to produce reports containing conclusions that are designed to attract maximum support in the Committee. The reports are therefore less abrasive than they might be, which thereby enables Ministers always to respond by saying that they agree with the conclusions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston—super—Mare mentioned one of those conclusions, and said that, on a matter of fundamental importance, the Government agreed with the Committee's conclusion that the sudden removal of support prices and quotas in the dairy sector is not a viable option. However, we did not come to that conclusion, although the Minister agreed with it. Before that, we said: the 'Big Bang' solution of drastic cuts… and the abolition of quotas overnight… would appear to be highly problematic". "Problematic" was a carefully chosen word. If one goes back to our report, we said something that I think is more significant. We said: the 'Big Bang' solution should not be rejected. It could be that a rapid radical reform would be more advantageous to producers as well as consumers if accompanied by a well-engineered programme of compensation. The matter must be examined within the context of a much wider-ranging discussion about what should happen in 2000. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned our earlier comments—which could have been interpreted as criticising the Government's position, and which the Government have sensibly chosen to ignore. The comments contain some criticism, although it is not a specific criticism of this Government. It is the expression of worry about a general lack of zeal, determination and robustness in ensuring that we have a proper solution by 2000 and that we tackle the problem soon.

According to paragraph 37 of the report: Mr. Hogg told us that MAFF's approach to the question of dairy regime reform would depend on the Commission coming forward with specific proposals. We could wait a long time for that. It continues: Mr. Hogg stated that 'the sensible man… decides what is attainable and then negotiates for that, otherwise you end up with egg on face'. This view contrasts with the strong statements of policy by MAFF. Given the vigorous and critical nature of the extended debate that will undoubtedly take place… we would expect Ministers to take a very robust stand… during negotiations. That robust approach had been reflected in Ministry documents that were extremely impressive. Page xxi of the report refers to a scathing critique of the dairy regime in which MAFF claimed that it was 'manifestly absurd to operate a support price system which encourages excessive production while at the same time imposing quotas to offset this'". That is the background to the issue. There is widespread concern that we shall end up with half-baked proposals from the European Community, a serious entrenchment in defence of the present position and only mild changes in 2000, so that the present regime, perhaps with some minor changes, may well continue for years.